Artists this good make me want to curl up in the fetal position and cry...

[Bitter Jeweler]

I say he's not an artist. He's an amazing illustrator, but not an artist.

I agree. I appreciate what he can accomplish, but, I do not equate copying a picture, dead on, as artistic or creative.
His technical skill is out of this world.

 

[unpopular]

Not that photorealism doesn't have potential, truthiness is a very big deal right now and is usually applied to digital manipulation. It would be interesting to see photorealist's take on this theme, but in general photorealists are too busy being photorealistic to do anything interesting.

 

[Photographiend]

What is "Trutiness"?

 

[MK3Brent]

it matters in the results and how the results are viewed.

What?

 

[unpopular]

"truthiness" is that which deals with what we intrinsically believe to be true. See this:

More Real? Art in the Age of Truthiness at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts

It comes from Stephen Colbert as satire, but has gained widespread acceptance as a concept.

Truthiness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Word - Truthiness - The Colbert Report - 2005-17-10 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[Overread]

I say he's not an artist. He's an amazing illustrator, but not an artist.

I agree. I appreciate what he can accomplish, but, I do not equate copying a picture, dead on, as artistic or creative.
His technical skill is out of this world.

Hmm but that is confusing.
Are you saying that you are an artist if you look at a scene before you and copy it dead on (or as close as possible) that you are "more" of an artist than if you do the same on a photograph? Outside of the time factor (many scenes in the real world do not remain static for hours on end) I can't see any difference between the two. Both are "copying" something that is already there - the copying of the photograph simply means that there is a slight disconnection between the artist and the scene because the scene is not static before them (instead you've the photo).


That is unless we are counting artists as only those who create from their minds eye only and without copying what is before them. (though of course anyone working from their minds eye could use reference material - then of course we'd enter a messy area of deciding what comes from the minds eye and what is just a collage of photos stitched technically together )

 

[unpopular]

it matters in the results and how the results are viewed.

What?

Ok yeh. I was just avoiding backtracking from what I was saying. LOL.

What a person is doesn't have to do with what a person creates, this example is not art - what the original artist or illustrator or lawyer "is" doesn't matter.

 

[unpopular]

Hmm but that is confusing.

there is a difference between appropriation and emulation and duplication. IMO this illustration doesn't add anything to the original, it is and is intended to be an identical experience.

 

[MK3Brent]

It's no different from photography.
It's art, it's shmart, it's something else you can't do.

Stop labeling everything.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I say he's not an artist. He's an amazing illustrator, but not an artist.

I agree. I appreciate what he can accomplish, but, I do not equate copying a picture, dead on, as artistic or creative.
His technical skill is out of this world.

Hmm but that is confusing.
Are you saying that you are an artist if you look at a scene before you and copy it dead on (or as close as possible) that you are "more" of an artist than if you do the same on a photograph? Outside of the time factor (many scenes in the real world do not remain static for hours on end) I can't see any difference between the two. Both are "copying" something that is already there - the copying of the photograph simply means that there is a slight disconnection between the artist and the scene because the scene is not static before them (instead you've the photo).


That is unless we are counting artists as only those who create from their minds eye only and without copying what is before them. (though of course anyone working from their minds eye could use reference material - then of course we'd enter a messy area of deciding what comes from the minds eye and what is just a collage of photos stitched technically together )

Take a drawing class.

I can teach anyone to break down an image into a grid, and transfer that to a new "canvas" with great success.
Now take that same person, right afterwards, and have them draw a physical, real world, 3 dimensional still life, and watch them fail miserably.

If you have never learned to do either, you will never understand my argument.

 

[Photographiend]

That is unless we are counting artists as only those who create from their minds eye only and without copying what is before them. (though of course anyone working from their minds eye could use reference material - then of course we'd enter a messy area of deciding what comes from the minds eye and what is just a collage of photos stitched technically together )

I think that is a great question. And possibly where they are coming from. I like to dabble with materials and express myself through "art forms" however I don't consider myself an "artist" because I tend to work from photographs. So, to me what I am doing is just glorified copy right infringement.

I suppose that is the same idea here. Only far more impressive than anything I have ever been able to produce. There is a creative element here though which is not getting due credit. The creativity resides in his choice of Media. Ball point pens. Which is what I find most impressive.

Unpopluar, I am still not sure what trutiness is based off of the example image and the wikipedia definition. I had googled it and found those but I don't see how the image relates to the definition.

Then to add to my confusion I found this which defines it as "Photography as Sculpture"... and appears more so Photography of sculpture...

http://www.tylerstallings.com/WritingContents/Essay_Stallings_Truthiness.pdf

 

[unpopular]

It's art, it's shmart, it's something else you can't do.

there is a lot of stuff I can't do.

and attempting to define art makes for a better artist.

 

[mishele]

 

[unpopular]

Unpopluar, I am still not sure what trutiness is based off of the example image and the wikipedia definition. I had googled it and found those but I don't see how the image relates to the definition.

It doesn't. That's my gripe with photorealism. It's just kind of a gimmick in my mind.

 

[Overread]

Take a drawing class.
I can teach anyone to break down an image into a grid, and transfer that to a new "canvas" with great success.
Now take that same person, right afterwards, and have them draw a physical, real world, 3 dimensional still life, and watch them fail miserably.
If you have never learned to do either, you will never understand my argument.

Am I allowed to fail at both?

I understand that line of argument certainly in that they are different skill sets and that whilst they might use the same tools the skills needed to get to the end result will differ. That said to me its just a difference in skills based upon the same theme - and to me both have the capabilities of being an artist. Not the same kind of artist no, but each an artist in their own right. Even in copy work there is artistic skill - maybe less individuality and freedom, but on a scale such as presented I would argue that it is still a level of artistic talent.

Further one can have the artistic freedom in this work with as much artistic licence as any photographer, simply by having the photo only as the reference material - yes the resulting drawing might be heavily based upon the photo to the point of near perfect recreation - but if the photo is simply used as part of the whole process then surely they've the same "right" to the creativity and freedom as any photographer does.